A new paper exploring the links between green and blue spaces and well-being in Wales has been published Open Access in the journal Scientific Reports. This paper was part of a project led by Prof Sarah Rodgers at the University of Liverpool.

Natural environments can promote well-being through multiple mechanisms. Although some of these benefits can be obtained by living near green or blue spaces, other potential pathways to well-being are assumed to require visiting. While the evidence on residential exposure and health and well-being has grown rapidly, fewer studies have explored the relationships between nature visits and well-being.

Here, we consider both green and blue spaces (GBS) as well as measures of quantity, accessibility and visits, which is comparatively rare. To do this, we used a nationally representative survey, the National Survey for Wales, anonymously linked with spatial GBS data to investigate associations of well-being with both residential GBS and time in nature. The number of people included in our analysis was 7,631.

We used the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank based at Swansea University. This enabled us to link respondents to the National Survey of Wales with high spatial resolution green and blue space data for the area immediately around their home. Quantity was measured by residential green-ness using the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), which measures the average green-ness of the area within 300 m of their home. Accessibility was measured by proximity to the nearest public green or blue space from the home. Our measure for actual use of GBS was weekly time spent outdoors for leisure visiting open spaces such as paths, woodland, parks and farmland (hereafter referred to as ‘time in nature’) which was derived from questions in the survey.

We first found that green-ness quantity around the home was negatively associated with subjective mental well-being (as measured by a tool called WEMWBS), such that as green-ness increased, well-being tended to decrease. This was in contrast with our expectations. Second, there was some indication that living further from the nearest accessible GBS was related to lower levels of well-being, although there were no clear trends across distance categories. Finally, and in clear support of our hypothesis, we found that spending more time in nature was consistently positively related to well-being, for both measured using WEMWBS and a life satisfaction measure. This means that as people report spending more time in nature, they also reported higher levels of well-being.

We also explored differences in the relationship for households in material deprivation compared to those not in material deprivation. Overall, on average, we found that subjective mental well-being tended to be higher for those who are not deprived, compared to those who live with material deprivation. However, when people reported spending time in nature, the well-being of those in deprivation was closer to those not in deprivation, on average. Spending time in nature was therefore associated with smaller inequalities in well-being. We did not find this potentially equitable effect when looking at the relationship between either green-ness around the home, or proximity to nearest GBS, and well-being.

The variation observed in our results, and in the wider literature, may be at least partly due to the variation in the methods used to assess exposure to nature and mental health and well-being outcomes.

We can’t be sure of the reasons underlying our findings. However, EVI is a general measure of green-ness and does not capture the diversity of environmental conditions in people’s home neighbourhoods. Similarly, our GBS proximity measure does not distinguish between different types, sizes or qualities of spaces, and therefore includes a wide range of different types of spaces which may vary in their suitability for recreation.

Further research is needed to understand the characteristics of the natural environments that are being used for leisure by residents of Wales that seem to be providing benefits when spending time outdoors. This would inform efforts to extend the availability, accessibility and use of these beneficial spaces to a greater proportion of the population.

Although we find negative or mixed results for associations between GBS around the home and well-being, we find consistent positive associations between time spent in nature and well-being. To the best of our knowledge, we provide the first evidence that the association between time spent outdoors and well-being is moderated by household-level deprivation. Spending time in nature may therefore contribute towards the mitigation and/or prevention of mental health problems for those exposed to material deprivation, which may have implications for planners and decision makers.

You can read the full paper at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35427-7